MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002566879 · doi:10.1086/660280

The Effect of Travel Loss on Evolutionarily Stable Distributions of Populations in Space

2011· article· en· W2002566879 on OpenAlexaff
Donald L. DeAngelis, Gail S. K. Wolkowicz, Yuan Lou, Yuexin Jiang, Márk Novák, Richard Svanbäck, Márcio S. Araújo, YoungSeung Jo, Erin A. Cleary

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetapopulationBiological dispersalEcologyIdeal free distributionPopulationBiologyHabitatSpatial heterogeneityMovement (music)EconometricsEconomicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key assumption of the ideal free distribution (IFD) is that there are no costs in moving between habitat patches. However, because many populations exhibit more or less continuous population movement between patches and traveling cost is a frequent factor, it is important to determine the effects of costs on expected population movement patterns and spatial distributions. We consider a food chain (tritrophic or bitrophic) in which one species moves between patches, with energy cost or mortality risk in movement. In the two-patch case, assuming forced movement in one direction, an evolutionarily stable strategy requires bidirectional movement, even if costs during movement are high. In the N-patch case, assuming that at least one patch is linked bidirectionally to all other patches, optimal movement rates can lead to source-sink dynamics where patches with negative growth rates are maintained by other patches with positive growth rates. As well, dispersal between patches is not balanced (even in the two-patch case), leading to a deviation from the IFD. Our results indicate that cost-associated forced movement can have important consequences for spatial metapopulation dynamics. Relevance to marine reserve design and the study of stream communities subject to drift is discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207